|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 14 2016 03:38 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:04 Shield wrote:On July 13 2016 03:52 RvB wrote:On July 13 2016 02:28 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 20:51 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round. Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters. I think you need to learn what oligarchic really means. In this case, it's not. Every party needs to decide who their leader should be. That should be decided by party members. No ifs, no buts. Choosing the next PM, in absence of general election, is a separate problem. Edit: Anything else is just unreasonable. Do you not see how opposition can vote for the weakest candidate? Tactical voting is still popular. Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. In this case the small number of people are the labour members. The party represents all their voters not just its members. This is how someone like Corbyn gets elected who represents party members but not a significant part of the voters at all. I'd just let MPs decide. You're letting a select few people decide yes but at least they have a democratic mandate. Either that or everyone who voted labour gets a ballot to vote or something. You talk about oligarchy, but you fail to realise that letting only MPs decide is bigger oligarchy than party members. I don't think party members being able to decide is oligarchy. I said why. Opposition can abuse that. Let party itself decide who their leader is. Then, if voters don't like that leader, they vote for another party with a better leader. It's basic democracy. You get punished if you don't represent voters. Also, when I vote for an MP I usually vote for THEIR POLICY not their opinion on who the next PM/party leader should be. That's something I've not given them a mandate for. That's in general not British politics. Just wanted to respond one more time to make my poin clear. Letting MPs decide is not more oligarchic for one simple reason. They have a democratic mandate from their voters (the thing that makes a representative democracy a democracy you know). MPs jobs depend on their party leader and they're a direct stakeholder. They're also the ones who can be held accountable by the voters. Party members have none of that. MPs should know their constituency best and based on how they think they can get the most votes they will decide a party leader. This way it's possible to get a party leader who represents the most amount of people.
From what I understand, your argument goes;
1) The MPs should decide the party leader.
2) The MPs should pick the party leader based on the manifesto that got them elected as MPs, ie they should pick the leader who most agrees with that manifesto.
3) The leader picks the direction of the party.
4) People vote for the party based on the ideals/manifesto of the party.
Doesn't this mean that a political party, so long as it has at least 1 MP, cannot change its manifesto from one election to the next? The MPs must act based on their previous manifesto and choose a leader who would push that manifesto which would then be their manifesto for the next election...?
The only way for things to change would be for new political parties to be created.
While we theoretically have a representative democracy, it is ruined by political parties. Representative democracy was great when we had fairly isolated villages/towns/hamlets who could pick their representative to send to London to fight for their values, but the system doesn't work that way any more. How many people can name their local MP? How many MPs are from the area they represent? My MP was born and raised in a different county. He mostly follows his party (except he's against gay marriage) according to theyworkforyou.com. His only experience of living in the constituency is as an MP. Is that how representative democracy is supposed to work?
If people genuinely voted for their local MP - and not for a political party - then a change of values could happen simply by a new person running for local MP. But, as long as people vote for political parties, then the parties must be able to change their ideals and since MPs should follow the ideals that got them elected, the sensible solution is to not let MPs decide the future direction of the party.
(Btw, in a truly representative democracy, the chance of re-election for an MP should not be influenced by how other politicians behave but only by how best the MP represented their people. That an MP could lose their seat because the party changed lines, even if that MP didn't, shows that we do not have a representative democracy in practice.)
|
On July 14 2016 04:52 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 03:29 bardtown wrote:On July 14 2016 03:15 kollin wrote:On July 14 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo. My friend, you are the problem, not the Labour 'rebels'. You say Miliband was unelectable - and you're right - but you neglect to mention that Corbyn is even worse. He's less popular than Trump or Clinton, the two most unpopular US presidential candidates of all time. The Labour party has been hijacked by communist bullies and radical students. If you think the electorate would ever countenance this then you are severely deluded. Also, it was not the PLP that gave you Ed, but the exact same people who gave you Corbyn: the unions. If we'd had David instead of Ed, we'd be in a very, very different position. The unions didn't 'give us' Corbyn due to the voting reforms pushed through by Miliband. How electable someone is doesn't matter if neither of them will get elected anyway, and what the PLP has done is choose to mount a coup at the worst possible moment they could have chosen, with a pro-Iraq, anti-austerity candidate even less likeable than Corbyn in lieu of doing their jobs and opposing the Conservatives. The PLP seem to be absolutely disconnected from reality, and so are you if you believe David Miliband would have held on to Scotland, or made any significant headway in England. Corbyn won the leadership election under the rules pushed for after Ed won the leadership - so overwhelmingly the PLP are resorting to preventing as many of the members voting as they believe they can get away with. I do not believe the membership of Labour are so deluded they would vote for Corbyn over another candidate without the same abysmal voting record as Eagle, even if they weren't so left-wing. But unfortunately that candidate doesn't exist, and it would seem quite reasonably Labour's members would rather lose on the platform of their choosing than see the party dragged towards the right once again. That candidate has already put his name in and I wouldn't be surprised if Eagle steps down before the end of the week. He's not perfect, but he's what you're asking for. On this we're agreed, I hope to god Owen Smith can win the leadership battle. I'm still skeptical whether or not Labour can get elected, but at least it might unite the party so they can fucking do something
As long as Corbyn is running his supporters will see him as the messiah and everyone else as the enemy, ruining any chance of uniting the party.
I've seen Smith described as blairite, new labour scum, a total misunderstanding of his positions and character, but like I said, as long as Corbyn's around...
|
Very happy to see David Davis as Brexit minister. I think we've got as good a team as we can hope for going into this.
|
What a joke when Boris Johnson is foreign minister. At this rate, you can put a monkey who will do less shit. Guaranteed.
|
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson!
|
On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson!
Smarter people than you already said Brexit is bad. Lots of proofs on the internet. If nobel prize winners and famous scientists aren't enough for you, then I'm sorry for you.
|
On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson!
I mean we're talking about a guy that shifted the course of your country not out of conviction, but due to a backfiring political gambit no different that Cameron's. I'm surprised even a Brexiteer would want him in power now.
|
On July 14 2016 05:31 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson! Smarter people than you already said Brexit is bad. Lots of proofs on the internet. If nobel prize winners and famous scientists aren't enough for you, then I'm sorry for you.
Do not make the mistake of thinking yourself in a position to judge my intelligence.
On July 14 2016 05:32 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson! I mean we're talking about a guy that shifted the course of your country not out of conviction, but due to a backfiring political gambit no different that Cameron's. I'm surprised even a Brexiteer would want him in power now.
Speculation presented as fact. I think it's a clever choice. He's a bumbling, likeable internationalist with links to the US. Seems to be exactly what's needed for building closer commonwealth/world ties post-Brexit.
|
United States44203 Posts
On July 14 2016 05:41 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:31 Shield wrote:On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson! Smarter people than you already said Brexit is bad. Lots of proofs on the internet. If nobel prize winners and famous scientists aren't enough for you, then I'm sorry for you. Do not make the mistake of thinking yourself in a position to judge my intelligence.
Hi, just letting you know that when you say things like this people judge you and in the context of all your other utterances they don't do so favourably.
|
On July 14 2016 05:41 bardtown wrote:
Speculation presented as fact. I think it's a clever choice. He's a bumbling, likeable internationalist with links to the US. Seems to be exactly what's needed for building closer commonwealth/world ties post-Brexit.
Until he insults a whole country again because he's a moron.
|
On July 13 2016 22:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 18:06 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 13 2016 17:48 bardtown wrote:
If the party members reinstate him then a new centrist party is a real possibility, consisting of the majority of the current Labour party and possibly a few tories/lib dems. And I think that would be a good thing. More parties == more democracy. You dont want to end like the pretend democracy they use in the US. In a FPTP system more parties == less democracy. You win a constituency with a plurality of votes, not a majority. The more parties, the more split the votes, the more votes are ignored and the fewer votes are needed to carry the constituency.
Well then obviously you have to adopt the russian way of politics: One party and 99% voter turnout.
|
On July 14 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:41 bardtown wrote:On July 14 2016 05:31 Shield wrote:On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson! Smarter people than you already said Brexit is bad. Lots of proofs on the internet. If nobel prize winners and famous scientists aren't enough for you, then I'm sorry for you. Do not make the mistake of thinking yourself in a position to judge my intelligence. Hi, just letting you know that when you say things like this people judge you and in the context of all your other utterances they don't do so favourably.
When you say 'they', what you mean to say is 'I' and, as it happens, given the context of all your other utterances, I interpret your having a negative opinion of me as being a good thing.
|
Speculation presented as fact. I think it's a clever choice. He's a bumbling, likeable internationalist with links to the US. Seems to be exactly what's needed for building closer commonwealth/world ties post-Brexit.
No, it's not speculation. He's also not likeable. Except if you're a trump supporter, or into Geert Wilders, then he's your wet dream. For people that don't respond well to populist, lying people (/sociopaths), not so much. And there's plenty of evidence of him lying, or as he put it, "accidentally exaggerated", out there.
Oh and yeah. He has brilliant ties to the US. What did he say? That the "part-kenyan" Obama may have an "ancestral dislike of the UK"? Astonishing. He seems like the perfect candidate.
When you say 'they', what you mean to say is 'I' and, as it happens, given the context of all your other utterances, I interpret your having a negative opinion of me as being a good thing.
No, i'm pretty sure he meant "they".
|
Yeah we should give the guy who got sacked from a newspaper for making up quotes and then arranged to have someone beaten up as much responsibility as possible.
He is clever enough to still be portrayed as likeable even though his actions betray a huge amount of nastiness.
|
On July 14 2016 05:41 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:32 Dan HH wrote:On July 14 2016 05:26 bardtown wrote:
Breaking news: the Bulgarian guy who's been flaming everyone who supported Brexit doesn't like Boris Johnson! I mean we're talking about a guy that shifted the course of your country not out of conviction, but due to a backfiring political gambit no different that Cameron's. I'm surprised even a Brexiteer would want him in power now. Speculation presented as fact. I think it's a clever choice. He's a bumbling, likeable internationalist with links to the US. Seems to be exactly what's needed for building closer commonwealth/world ties post-Brexit.
You mean the guy who called Obama a "part-Kenyan President" who harbors an "ancestral dislike of the British Empire", and Clinton a "sadistic nurse"?
|
On July 14 2016 05:53 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Speculation presented as fact. I think it's a clever choice. He's a bumbling, likeable internationalist with links to the US. Seems to be exactly what's needed for building closer commonwealth/world ties post-Brexit.
No, it's not speculation. He's also not likeable. Except if you're a trump supporter, or into Geert Wilders.
Translation: I'm an idiot who judges politicians primarily on their hair.
|
Was that Johnson appointment expected? I thought I followed the basic news on britain after the referndum, and I didnt read anything hinting at it.
|
On July 14 2016 06:05 Mafe wrote:
Was that Johnson appointment expected? I thought I followed the basic news on britain after the referndum, and I didnt read anything hinting at it.
Cabinet appointments are always kept under wraps until they happen really. None of the new appointments were necessarily expected or particularly unexpected.
Cameron's governments,for example, always came totally out of leftfield, featuring experienced politicians who didn't necessarily have experience or skill in the area they were expected to work in (this seemed to work OK for a while in some cases).
I'm certainly not surprised to see Johnson given a big role, i'm kind of ashamed that it was this one though.
|
On July 14 2016 06:05 Mafe wrote:
Was that Johnson appointment expected? I thought I followed the basic news on britain after the referndum, and I didnt read anything hinting at it.
Definitely unexpected, but there was a lot of uncertainty as to how May would deal with Johnson/Gove/Osborne.
|
On July 14 2016 06:05 Mafe wrote:
Was that Johnson appointment expected? I thought I followed the basic news on britain after the referndum, and I didnt read anything hinting at it.
I heard a mention of him maybe getting media & sport. Certainly not something as big as foreign secretary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
